Funko hit a home run with their "Pop!" vinyl doll thingies. I was glad when the finally about f***ing time introduced GHOSTBUSTERS Pop Vinyl's. I was further encouraged when they introduced other toylines and made GHOSTBUSTERS a part of them too. Vinyl Idolz, Titans, and now there's these Dorbz figures. I don't know if Dorbz in general are a new thing, but I'm getting sick of this. The Pop! figures are an utter waste of $10 (give or take + tax), and the Vinyl Idolz are slightly less stupid but double the price. The Titans are the only ones that I have *any* interest in simply because they look like actual toys and not some kind...whatever the hell the Pop! and the Dorbz are supposed to be...they may strike a cool factor with anime fans...idk...
Mattel is supposed to be doing their own GHOSTBUSTERS stuff in conjunction with the 2016 movie. I can't wait 'til the trailer comes out. The only film I've seen of the director's is THE HEAT (which I didn't watch much of b/c it was just flat out dumb in every respect). The new SPY movie is supposedly better and I haven't seen BRIDESMAIDS but that came out before THE HEAT and I get the impression the director may have learned how to do full length motion pictures "on the job"...from a visual standpoint, THE HEAT looked to me like what a cartoon would look like if it was acted out instead of drawn/painted...
However much the film does (or doesn't) suck, it's going to be nice having a tidal wave of GHOSTBUSTERS merch around me again. I keep thinking "I can't buy any of it!" because I could very well not be getting any more money from October (?) 2016 onward. I had no idea until a couple (?) months ago that SSI was slated for depletion so damn soon. I thought SSI was funded alongside Social Security. Turns out there's some kind of trustfund that was set up independent of Social Security. I guess this was in the news back in 2012, but apparently I wasn't keeping up enough with tings.
Weird thing is I don't even care. Maybe I'm just due for a nap, but I don't care. That strikes me as both sad and worrisome. What is there to keep a person from dying on the inside if they find nothing that "makes" them happy?
I guess I'm just stuck in this perpetual state of "Let's go to the mall!". I always loved the mall as a little kid but we rarely were able to go. Between my dad not wanting to spend money on anything but himself and my mom being so depressed, it was not as common as I would have liked.
It's weird. It's been a nerve wracking thing, the whole experience of "shopping". It's not a whole lot of fun by yourself. My mom can once in a great while enjoy it. Or seem to anyway. It was like 1996 or so, I was 13, give or take a few months, and I asked my mom to take me to the mall. We got there and she was like "so what did you want to do here?" I was totally caught off guard. I didn't have much if any money (allowance) and I doubt she did either, so the only thing I could think of that didn't cost a boat ton of money was sit down and eat. We had some cinnamon rolls, very good ones. My mom insists they were Cinnabon roles. Maybe they were. I remember it being a very plainly laid out eatery type place. Like one of those pizzareas on some corner of downtown Chicago or something...maybe that was Cinnabon's angle back then. The one the mall in Cape, Missouri used to have was more sparkling et al.
Anyway...shopping in general has gotten to be more of a game than it should be A difficult one to win at that. It is imperative that I fold.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
"The only K we're going to is college!"
Barista spelled my name Jonathen. I've seen my name spelled Jonothon, but not Jonathen.
That's not as bad as the one my mum got. Her name is now Karol-Ann. Not Karl Ann. Karol Ann. How many Carol's spell their name with a "K"? I guess it was at one point long long ago somewhat common...like in the '40s maybe? idk...I don't think it was the same spelling with the exception of a K instead of C...I think it was like Karollee...idk...seems vaguely familiar...maybe I'm thinking of Clark Kent's birthname...idk...
That's not as bad as the one my mum got. Her name is now Karol-Ann. Not Karl Ann. Karol Ann. How many Carol's spell their name with a "K"? I guess it was at one point long long ago somewhat common...like in the '40s maybe? idk...I don't think it was the same spelling with the exception of a K instead of C...I think it was like Karollee...idk...seems vaguely familiar...maybe I'm thinking of Clark Kent's birthname...idk...
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
The One with the wurlitzer
I put American Football's sole album in my Blu ray/DVD/CD player this morning while attempting to go to sleep. I fell asleep before it was over but what I did consciously hear of it was perfect. It was about 9am. The glow of the sunlight was perfect. I could feel images of winter in my head. This is precisely why I love that album. I don't know what the connection is. Someone on Amazon, a customer publishing his 2cents on the matter, said the music is reminiscent of childhood. He described actives that sound like what I imagine a child experiencing life in the '50s-'70s -- before video games & MTV -- would have engaged in. I did go outside and explore etc. I had a grasshopper collection. I even had a "pet lizard" that I found in the yard one time and stayed in the yard for the longest time (my mother theorizes it got ate by a bird...which does seem to me like is a definite possibility...I do wonder why it stayed in the yard so long...maybe that question suddenly occurred to the lizard too?) But I was kind of an odd kid (and now an odd overall human being). I ultimately enjoyed watching movies/tv and browsing the cover-art of movies at the video store. It's strange how a lot of really crappy movies from the mid-1980s up to the early 1990s had really awesome cover-art. I think it was around the mid 90's when they started putting butt ugly cover-art on movies. CUJO (1983) was the worst offender. They finally re-issued it on blu ray with the original VHS cover-art. There's an older blu ray edition that has OK cover-art that seems modeled after the cover design of the original hardcover book it was based on. the second worst offender was HALLOWEEN II (1981). The original cover-art featured a freaky-ass pumpkin with what looked like very real teeth. The pumpkin was included in a mid-90's re-issue of the movie, but it was part of that whole "ensemble" look that seems to be popular with the audiences to this day still. The BD/DVD and standalone DVD release of TERMINATOR: GENYSIS has the same problem. There's like 6 characters in the film that are highlighted in the trailer and every one of them is on the front cover of the BD/DVD combo and standalone DVD. Is that really necessary? The 3D Blu ray release has a better design. If the price goes down $10++, I might buy it. First I should probably watch the movie though. I didn't get around to seeing it in theaters.
But anyway; I guess movies in the 80's and early 90's were what you might call "falsely advertised". The movie adaptation for Stephen King's short story GRAVEYARD SHIFT was mostly boring. The cover graphics spoke volumes of the contrary. As if that wasn't bad enough, they typed on some b.s. about how the film was scarier than Pet Semetary and The Shining combined or something like that. Of course, there was no quotation marks on that statement, nor was there a critics name beside it. Thank GOD! Any respectable critic should be fired from his job for making a statement like that! Of course, these days there's all kinds of online blogger-types who review movies, and crappy movies will include their praises on the DVD cover-art. I don't subscribe to any of the online movie critic bloggers. Some of them may be trustworthy. I almost rented this movie called LIVE ANIMALS from a few years back. The average customer rating last I looked at Amazon was like 1.5 out of 5 stars. Some of the claims against the movie were rather severe. I don't remember which online movie critics are guilty of giving the movie undo credit, but I do remember there were at least 3 different movie critic websites that were featured/included on the cover and some of them at least I'd actually heard of/seen mentioned before. So I've decided instead of making a hitlist, I'll stick to critics that have something to lose (i.e.: their job). People on the internet who rely on advertising from Adsense and the like will always generate revenue from the millions of people out there who blindly take to heart everything they read.
Anyway.
I started listening to Jackson Browne's "Running on Empty" which I don't generally think highly of, but I was scrambling all over the internet trying to find Browne's live rendition of "For A Dancer" that was included on a tribute to Nicolette Larson from 1998. I'd heard it on Pandora, but I can't find it anywhere. I know iTunes has it, but I don't think very kindly of a company that requires its users to download software to get the job done. Also -- the software is ginormous! The installation file itself is 160MB!
But as I was saying, while attempting to listen to that song at Slacker Radio's website, I accidentally created a Jackson Browne radio station via Slacker Radio's proprietary modern day hyrogliphics (sp???) and "Running On Empty" played and suddenly I remembered why I like THE NEXT VOICE YOU HEAR: THE BEST OF JACKSON BROWNE. I even found myself drawn to the opening track "Doctor My Eyes" which I've often felt sickened by while listening to it, like something was horribly wrong here. The album is a very autumn one. Very much like autumn itself, you can't force it. You just gotta wait for the right time. I thought maybe I'd have to wait 'til next year to enjoy AMERICAN FOOTBALL, since usually I start digging it a bit sooner (at least I thought) and there have been years where I didn't enjoy listening to it at all. Going two years without listening to a CD isn't that bad, really. It may be abnormal and it may make the price of the album seem that much more expensive for someone like me that shouldn't even have money to spend on music, but those times when I'm able to enjoy it are priceless.
But anyway; I guess movies in the 80's and early 90's were what you might call "falsely advertised". The movie adaptation for Stephen King's short story GRAVEYARD SHIFT was mostly boring. The cover graphics spoke volumes of the contrary. As if that wasn't bad enough, they typed on some b.s. about how the film was scarier than Pet Semetary and The Shining combined or something like that. Of course, there was no quotation marks on that statement, nor was there a critics name beside it. Thank GOD! Any respectable critic should be fired from his job for making a statement like that! Of course, these days there's all kinds of online blogger-types who review movies, and crappy movies will include their praises on the DVD cover-art. I don't subscribe to any of the online movie critic bloggers. Some of them may be trustworthy. I almost rented this movie called LIVE ANIMALS from a few years back. The average customer rating last I looked at Amazon was like 1.5 out of 5 stars. Some of the claims against the movie were rather severe. I don't remember which online movie critics are guilty of giving the movie undo credit, but I do remember there were at least 3 different movie critic websites that were featured/included on the cover and some of them at least I'd actually heard of/seen mentioned before. So I've decided instead of making a hitlist, I'll stick to critics that have something to lose (i.e.: their job). People on the internet who rely on advertising from Adsense and the like will always generate revenue from the millions of people out there who blindly take to heart everything they read.
Anyway.
I started listening to Jackson Browne's "Running on Empty" which I don't generally think highly of, but I was scrambling all over the internet trying to find Browne's live rendition of "For A Dancer" that was included on a tribute to Nicolette Larson from 1998. I'd heard it on Pandora, but I can't find it anywhere. I know iTunes has it, but I don't think very kindly of a company that requires its users to download software to get the job done. Also -- the software is ginormous! The installation file itself is 160MB!
But as I was saying, while attempting to listen to that song at Slacker Radio's website, I accidentally created a Jackson Browne radio station via Slacker Radio's proprietary modern day hyrogliphics (sp???) and "Running On Empty" played and suddenly I remembered why I like THE NEXT VOICE YOU HEAR: THE BEST OF JACKSON BROWNE. I even found myself drawn to the opening track "Doctor My Eyes" which I've often felt sickened by while listening to it, like something was horribly wrong here. The album is a very autumn one. Very much like autumn itself, you can't force it. You just gotta wait for the right time. I thought maybe I'd have to wait 'til next year to enjoy AMERICAN FOOTBALL, since usually I start digging it a bit sooner (at least I thought) and there have been years where I didn't enjoy listening to it at all. Going two years without listening to a CD isn't that bad, really. It may be abnormal and it may make the price of the album seem that much more expensive for someone like me that shouldn't even have money to spend on music, but those times when I'm able to enjoy it are priceless.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Terminator: Genisys - wth?
I didn't get around to seeing T:G when it was still in theaters in my town of residence (which,btw,houses the biggest theater in the area; driving 1.5 hrs to St. Louis would maybe gain me a shot, but with no car or driver's license (I might be capable of getting a license, but I'd be surprised if I was able to use it for any length of time before it got taken away for repeated traffic violations) and very little $, that's a tough feat). It's also not out on video 'til November, so I don't know how good the movie is. Critics seem to hate it. One guy I saw posting online said he enjoyed the film, but was annoyed by its very existence (possibly not the exact words he used, but close...unless my memory's f***ed me over...) I really don't know how someone can feel so negatively passionate about a movie that they enjoyed...SO WHAT if it was planned by the current copyright holders? It's not like it's guaranteed to suck just because of that. If the producers aren't too blinded by money to know the difference between a good movie and a just-OK one, then how can you blame a production company for hiring a screenwriter (presumably one that's good at his/her job) and accepting it?
Yes, I know studios put out crap all the time. That's not only true with franchise properties, all kinds of movies that could have been a lot better end up getting put in theaters with the hopes that the public isn't "too picky" to care how crappy the movie is. There've been exceptions, albeit not many. (500) Days Of Summer (2008) was good, THE DARK KNIGHT Trilogy (2005-2012) was freakin' awesome (TDK was a little too depressing IMO but DKR more than made up for it)...I personally thoroughly enjoyed SHORT TERM 12 (2014) (being a victim of mental illness, the film resonated with me more than it probably did for a lot of other people), THE SPECTACULAR NOW (2013)...there was a stand-alone superhero film released in 2010 called SUPER, with Raain Wilson and Ellen Page...I was very moved by it. Jodie Foster's THE BEAVER (2011) was also very moving and very funny. Martin Scorsese's THE DEPARTED (2006) was amazing, but that's kind of to be expected...Martin Scorsese's career far predates the stagnation that Hollywood is currently in. THE EXTRA-MAN with Kevin Kline was OK, not great, but good. There's probably several more I can think of if I gave it enough time. I just thought of one a moment ago and now I don't remember what it was I was thinking of..
That movie THE INTERN, with Robert De Niro and Anne Hathaway looks good. I don't know if it's half as good as it plays out in the trailer that I saw on YouTube. Hopefully it is. It probably isn't.
I personally am not impressed by the trend in comedy these days to be offense and/or vulgar. Those traits don't make a movie funny. Generic action films have existed since the '80's, if not before...roaming jeeps in the desert driven by people with machine guns...etc...martial arts films were big in the '70's but they kinda went out of style at some point in the '80's. When it came to Hollywood, action films had to have something special about them to set them apart. Now that "something special" seems to be nothing more than Arnold Schwartzennegger's presence. The Governator used to be the king of action films. And when I say that, I mean he was always in very good action films, not movies that existed solely to show off artillery and motor vehicles. Arnold S.'s movies, from THE TERMINATOR (1984) up through END OF DAYS (1999) were a feast for the senses. He even did a few successful comedies with the director of GHOSTBUSTERS. JINGLE ALL THE WAY (1996) was good, even though it was a little too adult oriented to really be something the whole family can watch...not that it's crude or anything, it just seems more targeted to adults than to kids. I was 14 when I saw it and laughed my ass off much of the running time.
And since Eli Roth's HOSTEL (2005), so many movies had tried to cash in on that formula. I haven't seen HOSTEL, so I can't verify how good or bad it is, but if I had the stomach to watch it and not faint or throw up, I could probably tell you that despite how utterly disgusting it is, it was a well made film. TURISTAS (2006) was just pathetic. I saw a TV spot around late 2005/early 2006 and figured I'd rent it. The gore is not realistic enough to take seriously. What a joke! I should have rented HOSTEL instead, but I guess I was confused by the title...idk...it took me a rediculously long time to realize how intense that movie apparently is...many/most of the less glowing reviews on Amazon for the DVD are simply stating how sick and disgusting the film is. If those people had read the customer reviews instead of merely writing one of their own, they would have spared themselves the agony. It's possible all these other films that have been populating the video store have some artistic merit, but...browsing through the horror aisle these days has become an R rated experience. A lot of the ones available for rental nowadays should be cut off from the rest of the video store...like they do with the XXX films.
Hmmm...anyway...movies generally suck these days. I tried watching THE FAULT IN OUR STARS and the film was just way too flippant on every level. You got the sense that the cancer patient was not happy. Then two minutes later she's attracted her soul mate. WTH? That film is to drama what a porn film is to erotica. I would expect a GOOD film (drama) to breathe a little more. The film moved way too fast. Sure, the story is easy to relate to, for most people, but the story for most movies, including good ones, can be experienced in the same flat presentation of THE FAULT IN OUR STARS by reading a 2 page summation of the movie. A 90+ minute movie of that caliber is not needed! I felt similarly about another recent teen melodrama titled IF I STAY. The film would have been good if it didn't spend so much time telling the backstory that lead up to the main character being in a coma. A film like this is not a declaration of life's joys. The entire idea of the book it was based on was not "LET ME LIVE!"; that's why it's titled ***IF**** I STAY -- before the film begins the celebration of life aspect is already ambiguous. The scenes that make up the first half hour of the movie are completely out of context. If they existed in flash backs, it would have made more sense and been more resonating. The whole "get to the point" element would have been removed.
And I realize a lot of these movies are based on books. They sell well and some movie studio wants to replicate the book's success. That didn't stop them from being well liked by your average sap and making tons of money in the USA. TERMINATOR: GENISYS on the other hand is considered an artistic failure even if it was enjoyable...simply because James Cameron didn't make it himself? Aside from the fact that the ideas that make up THE TERMINATOR are not that freakin' original, why not critizise DC Comics for publishing BATMAN 20 years after Bob Kane died? He obviously isn't writing those himself. He created the series, did he not? What are all these other dudes adding on to Bob Kane's original story? You know damn well they didn't get hired by DC Comics by submitting their own BATMAN story idea. They were hired on the strength of their story telling abilities. As I said already, a movie is more than just an able story. It does take a lot of people to get any movie made and if the movie is to be good, it's gonna take cooperation on the part of all of them. Which is why movies have a director, or at least that's one reason...I don't know if the critics low opinion of the movie is justified or not. Rolling Stone magazine's Peter Travers is usually a good judge of movies. According to him, it's a great movie. It's not like I always agree with everything he says. Peter Jackson's KING KONG was dumb, IMO. Peter Travers liked it a lot. I don't know...guess I'll find out for sure when it comes to video. Maybe my local theater will do an encore?
Yes, I know studios put out crap all the time. That's not only true with franchise properties, all kinds of movies that could have been a lot better end up getting put in theaters with the hopes that the public isn't "too picky" to care how crappy the movie is. There've been exceptions, albeit not many. (500) Days Of Summer (2008) was good, THE DARK KNIGHT Trilogy (2005-2012) was freakin' awesome (TDK was a little too depressing IMO but DKR more than made up for it)...I personally thoroughly enjoyed SHORT TERM 12 (2014) (being a victim of mental illness, the film resonated with me more than it probably did for a lot of other people), THE SPECTACULAR NOW (2013)...there was a stand-alone superhero film released in 2010 called SUPER, with Raain Wilson and Ellen Page...I was very moved by it. Jodie Foster's THE BEAVER (2011) was also very moving and very funny. Martin Scorsese's THE DEPARTED (2006) was amazing, but that's kind of to be expected...Martin Scorsese's career far predates the stagnation that Hollywood is currently in. THE EXTRA-MAN with Kevin Kline was OK, not great, but good. There's probably several more I can think of if I gave it enough time. I just thought of one a moment ago and now I don't remember what it was I was thinking of..
That movie THE INTERN, with Robert De Niro and Anne Hathaway looks good. I don't know if it's half as good as it plays out in the trailer that I saw on YouTube. Hopefully it is. It probably isn't.
I personally am not impressed by the trend in comedy these days to be offense and/or vulgar. Those traits don't make a movie funny. Generic action films have existed since the '80's, if not before...roaming jeeps in the desert driven by people with machine guns...etc...martial arts films were big in the '70's but they kinda went out of style at some point in the '80's. When it came to Hollywood, action films had to have something special about them to set them apart. Now that "something special" seems to be nothing more than Arnold Schwartzennegger's presence. The Governator used to be the king of action films. And when I say that, I mean he was always in very good action films, not movies that existed solely to show off artillery and motor vehicles. Arnold S.'s movies, from THE TERMINATOR (1984) up through END OF DAYS (1999) were a feast for the senses. He even did a few successful comedies with the director of GHOSTBUSTERS. JINGLE ALL THE WAY (1996) was good, even though it was a little too adult oriented to really be something the whole family can watch...not that it's crude or anything, it just seems more targeted to adults than to kids. I was 14 when I saw it and laughed my ass off much of the running time.
And since Eli Roth's HOSTEL (2005), so many movies had tried to cash in on that formula. I haven't seen HOSTEL, so I can't verify how good or bad it is, but if I had the stomach to watch it and not faint or throw up, I could probably tell you that despite how utterly disgusting it is, it was a well made film. TURISTAS (2006) was just pathetic. I saw a TV spot around late 2005/early 2006 and figured I'd rent it. The gore is not realistic enough to take seriously. What a joke! I should have rented HOSTEL instead, but I guess I was confused by the title...idk...it took me a rediculously long time to realize how intense that movie apparently is...many/most of the less glowing reviews on Amazon for the DVD are simply stating how sick and disgusting the film is. If those people had read the customer reviews instead of merely writing one of their own, they would have spared themselves the agony. It's possible all these other films that have been populating the video store have some artistic merit, but...browsing through the horror aisle these days has become an R rated experience. A lot of the ones available for rental nowadays should be cut off from the rest of the video store...like they do with the XXX films.
Hmmm...anyway...movies generally suck these days. I tried watching THE FAULT IN OUR STARS and the film was just way too flippant on every level. You got the sense that the cancer patient was not happy. Then two minutes later she's attracted her soul mate. WTH? That film is to drama what a porn film is to erotica. I would expect a GOOD film (drama) to breathe a little more. The film moved way too fast. Sure, the story is easy to relate to, for most people, but the story for most movies, including good ones, can be experienced in the same flat presentation of THE FAULT IN OUR STARS by reading a 2 page summation of the movie. A 90+ minute movie of that caliber is not needed! I felt similarly about another recent teen melodrama titled IF I STAY. The film would have been good if it didn't spend so much time telling the backstory that lead up to the main character being in a coma. A film like this is not a declaration of life's joys. The entire idea of the book it was based on was not "LET ME LIVE!"; that's why it's titled ***IF**** I STAY -- before the film begins the celebration of life aspect is already ambiguous. The scenes that make up the first half hour of the movie are completely out of context. If they existed in flash backs, it would have made more sense and been more resonating. The whole "get to the point" element would have been removed.
And I realize a lot of these movies are based on books. They sell well and some movie studio wants to replicate the book's success. That didn't stop them from being well liked by your average sap and making tons of money in the USA. TERMINATOR: GENISYS on the other hand is considered an artistic failure even if it was enjoyable...simply because James Cameron didn't make it himself? Aside from the fact that the ideas that make up THE TERMINATOR are not that freakin' original, why not critizise DC Comics for publishing BATMAN 20 years after Bob Kane died? He obviously isn't writing those himself. He created the series, did he not? What are all these other dudes adding on to Bob Kane's original story? You know damn well they didn't get hired by DC Comics by submitting their own BATMAN story idea. They were hired on the strength of their story telling abilities. As I said already, a movie is more than just an able story. It does take a lot of people to get any movie made and if the movie is to be good, it's gonna take cooperation on the part of all of them. Which is why movies have a director, or at least that's one reason...I don't know if the critics low opinion of the movie is justified or not. Rolling Stone magazine's Peter Travers is usually a good judge of movies. According to him, it's a great movie. It's not like I always agree with everything he says. Peter Jackson's KING KONG was dumb, IMO. Peter Travers liked it a lot. I don't know...guess I'll find out for sure when it comes to video. Maybe my local theater will do an encore?
Friday, September 18, 2015
THE GODFATHER of All Movies!
THE GODFATHER (1972) is the movie to end all movies.
It's everything a movie should be - a painting that moves.
The story is somewhat incoherent and what can be discerned is rather faulty, since it's basically a knee-jerk reaction to the political unrest that was felt during the institutionalized slaughter of many Americans for the sake of money (two knee jerk reactions don't make either one right!).
It's an interesting film, even if you take out the political context of the times in which it was made. It's interesting if you don't. I suppose it's food for thought you might say. But the most impressive thing about it is the look and feel of the movie. It just glides seemingly w/o effort. The fact is making any movie, even a crappy movie, is a lot of work. I don't use that as a defense for trying to sell crap to consumers. I especially despise those who DO use that as an excuse! If you don't know you suck at making movies, you can certainly figure that out when you've finished making a movie and you find out it sucks! I can't imagine a masterpiece being perceived as a failure. I can perhaps see a masterpiece being perceived as mediocre. Elton John and Bernie Taupen once downplayed the magnificence of the classic/iconic/seminal hit "Your Song", saying everything else they wrote was equally good. If the duo indeed felt passionate about everything they wrote, I fail to see how. But I guess I don't count. I do see how "Your Song" rises above the rest of the crop, but it's still not by any means one of my favs. Elton's music is reminiscent of The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac. They all got some memorable songs, but they have no important role in my life. A song that I remember but feel nothing for is to soundwaves what snot is to my nostrils.
I thought about getting rid of my copy of THE EXORCIST (1973). I do not feel any detectable sympathy for the characters. I certainly am not horrified by the depictions of demonic possession. I do not feel the triumph of God in the final scenes.
The movie can best be described as somber. The whole thing.
I guess that's why I've clung to it so many years.
In a large way, it's enjoyability is akin to that of THE GODFATHER -- it's got a more coherent story than that, but it's just as meaningless. There is some thought to glean from it and folks in its new release days were often horrified to the point of fainting. William Friedkin stated on the 25th Anniversary Edition introduction that the film could make you challenge your sanity. He didn't really elaborate, but perhaps the mood of the film combined with its staunch religious subject matter was just what some people needed back in 1973/1974 (it was released 6 days before the beginning of 1974). There were seemingly forces that didn't want the film made. I would suspect those were demonic forces? I doubt the film pissed off God. I'm sure there were many people whose faith was re-affirmed after seeing that film and perhaps a few phony church goers who felt the need to really think about what it is they believe and I suspect some of them may have been lost for good. It's hard to say.
anyway; back on my shelf it goes. I had it listed on Amazon. I'm glad it didn't sell. I took it off an hour(?) ago and when I can get off my ass for some reason other than to eat, I will insert it between "E.T.: and "GHOSTBUSTERS" (I don't own any films that start with "F", although I did own FORREST GUMP not long ago....)
It's everything a movie should be - a painting that moves.
The story is somewhat incoherent and what can be discerned is rather faulty, since it's basically a knee-jerk reaction to the political unrest that was felt during the institutionalized slaughter of many Americans for the sake of money (two knee jerk reactions don't make either one right!).
It's an interesting film, even if you take out the political context of the times in which it was made. It's interesting if you don't. I suppose it's food for thought you might say. But the most impressive thing about it is the look and feel of the movie. It just glides seemingly w/o effort. The fact is making any movie, even a crappy movie, is a lot of work. I don't use that as a defense for trying to sell crap to consumers. I especially despise those who DO use that as an excuse! If you don't know you suck at making movies, you can certainly figure that out when you've finished making a movie and you find out it sucks! I can't imagine a masterpiece being perceived as a failure. I can perhaps see a masterpiece being perceived as mediocre. Elton John and Bernie Taupen once downplayed the magnificence of the classic/iconic/seminal hit "Your Song", saying everything else they wrote was equally good. If the duo indeed felt passionate about everything they wrote, I fail to see how. But I guess I don't count. I do see how "Your Song" rises above the rest of the crop, but it's still not by any means one of my favs. Elton's music is reminiscent of The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac. They all got some memorable songs, but they have no important role in my life. A song that I remember but feel nothing for is to soundwaves what snot is to my nostrils.
I thought about getting rid of my copy of THE EXORCIST (1973). I do not feel any detectable sympathy for the characters. I certainly am not horrified by the depictions of demonic possession. I do not feel the triumph of God in the final scenes.
The movie can best be described as somber. The whole thing.
I guess that's why I've clung to it so many years.
In a large way, it's enjoyability is akin to that of THE GODFATHER -- it's got a more coherent story than that, but it's just as meaningless. There is some thought to glean from it and folks in its new release days were often horrified to the point of fainting. William Friedkin stated on the 25th Anniversary Edition introduction that the film could make you challenge your sanity. He didn't really elaborate, but perhaps the mood of the film combined with its staunch religious subject matter was just what some people needed back in 1973/1974 (it was released 6 days before the beginning of 1974). There were seemingly forces that didn't want the film made. I would suspect those were demonic forces? I doubt the film pissed off God. I'm sure there were many people whose faith was re-affirmed after seeing that film and perhaps a few phony church goers who felt the need to really think about what it is they believe and I suspect some of them may have been lost for good. It's hard to say.
anyway; back on my shelf it goes. I had it listed on Amazon. I'm glad it didn't sell. I took it off an hour(?) ago and when I can get off my ass for some reason other than to eat, I will insert it between "E.T.: and "GHOSTBUSTERS" (I don't own any films that start with "F", although I did own FORREST GUMP not long ago....)
Thursday, September 17, 2015
A FRIEND OF THE FAMILY by Lauren Grodstein
...
has three and a half stars on average (out of five) from 336 (and counting?) customer reviews.
I'm only on page 10 so I can't verify anything that anyone's stance on the book.
But the top voted-helpful reviews range from "huh?" to "are you sure" to "DAMN YOU!". One reviewer uses the word "gripping" like 3 times and then details THE ENTIRE DAMN STORY ("DAMN YOU!"). One reviewer sounds like a kindergarten teacher who thinks everything is an afterschool special...then there's one who sounds EXTREMELY un-enthusiastic about the book then rates it four stars (???), and a couple others toward the bottom of the list and I don't even know if I read them because they all sound so generic and uninformative...!!! If I elected to view all customer reviews and sorted by "newest" instead of "most helpful", I'm sure I'd find several reviews that only have 5 words. "Love it, highly recommended!" or "You gotta read this, it was really good!" or "dumb. I can't even believe they published it"...and so and so on...in other words, people that are too dumb to know what they're thinking and thus write it down! If you can't think, don't write. Simple as that. The phrase "learn to talk" is kind of overused given how talking is a reflection of thought and so many people don't know how to think and should thus never speak!!!
Ugh...
has three and a half stars on average (out of five) from 336 (and counting?) customer reviews.
I'm only on page 10 so I can't verify anything that anyone's stance on the book.
But the top voted-helpful reviews range from "huh?" to "are you sure" to "DAMN YOU!". One reviewer uses the word "gripping" like 3 times and then details THE ENTIRE DAMN STORY ("DAMN YOU!"). One reviewer sounds like a kindergarten teacher who thinks everything is an afterschool special...then there's one who sounds EXTREMELY un-enthusiastic about the book then rates it four stars (???), and a couple others toward the bottom of the list and I don't even know if I read them because they all sound so generic and uninformative...!!! If I elected to view all customer reviews and sorted by "newest" instead of "most helpful", I'm sure I'd find several reviews that only have 5 words. "Love it, highly recommended!" or "You gotta read this, it was really good!" or "dumb. I can't even believe they published it"...and so and so on...in other words, people that are too dumb to know what they're thinking and thus write it down! If you can't think, don't write. Simple as that. The phrase "learn to talk" is kind of overused given how talking is a reflection of thought and so many people don't know how to think and should thus never speak!!!
Ugh...
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
The Bluebird of Happiness
Lotte Kestner's 2013 album THE BLUEBIRD OF HAPPINESS is freakin' awesome. I don't listen to it often b/c it's not something you can just hear and be content with. A lot of the music I listen to - synth pop etc. - can be appreciated to some extent after the resounding pang from the melodies themselves becomes predictable and thus stops.
I finally bought it a couple months ago. It's certainly a worthwhile addition to my CD stash.
I wonder how many copies the album sold tho. I know Anna-Lynne Williams, the one person who writes and orchestrates the music on the albums bearing the name Lotte Kestner, did tour regionally pretty frequently when she was in the band Trespassers William. She may have came from a somewhat wealthy family, and thus isn't concerned about money. I don't know. I spoke with her via email and she said she was raising the prices of her Trespassers William CDs that she sells personally b/c she said she'd lost a lot of the money she had invested b/c of the economic b.s. that was manifesting at that time (I don't remember the date or the year of the email exactly...), which implies she had (at one time at least) money TO invest...which is certainly not the case with me...even if I got "my head out of my ass" and "got a job", I'd still be making peanuts. A lot of people call their paycheck peanuts b/c they're not being paid wads of cash hand over fist...but then they go to the movie theater **and** buy popcorn+a drink on a regular basis. I could afford to go to the movie theater, sure, but if you compare the cost of my rent to that of the average Missourian, I'm very lucky. Thankfully, my sister is my landlord. Not too many people have that to say about themselves. Oh, AND I have a roommate to help with the base cost of rent and utilities etc....a lot of my money does get wasted b/c I like to shop and can't find anything truly worth buying that doesn't eat up a large chunk of my money. I usually end up buying things that I should already own but don't because I got rid of them to make room in my budget for more shopping...it's gotten better...still have some work to do...
But anyway. Assuming Anna-Lynne Williams was/is not well (or at least OK) to do outside of the monetary benefits of music making...I have to wonder: is her music profitable? I mean, I know a lot of artists/bands tour, sometimes, as in the case of Aerosmith etc., it's simply because they want to. Other times I don't get it. Pearl Jam? They actually elected not to tour in support of their 2nd album. I'm glad they were fortunate enough to deal their own cards. Of course, when you have mega-sales of one individual album, I'd imagine you can threaten your way into getting what you want (or un-getting what you want against). Michael Jackson toured b/c he was desperate for other people's acceptance/approval. Katy Perry probably tours b/c she has an ego 3x the size of her brain and likes that feeling of Ms. World Domination. Beyonce? I don't even understand her appeal. I didn't like Destiny's Child and I have no interest in Beyonce's solo career. So I can't say what it is about her that compels her to tour because she's an artist whose music I'm not interested enough in to bother analyzing. I didn't realize "Halo" was a Beyonce cover, btw. I just got done reading about that on PopMatters. It's a great song, a great performance...Beyonce's version I have no interest in. It may be good, it may not be. If Beyonce hadn't been working in a band that defined the cold-blooded nature of the music industry and the overall teenager population that listened to them, I might give it a try. N.I.
I know it's possible - very much so - for a band/artist that doesn't use payola or pimp themselves out to PepsiCo to succeed in the monetary standard.
But the only bands I can think of that have done that are Taking Back Sunday, Hawthorne Heights, Senses Fail, Silverstein and every other emopop band that cropped up before "emo" became a dirty word...and the only reason they succeeded on that front was because they were part of a trend. People were coocoo for emo - puffs. It'd be nice if once in a while an album would sell a large qty of units without the tools of payola, peer pressure, or the artist/band putting on some act that makes people think they have idol potential. Michael Jackson was the worst about that. He'd be on stage and you'd think he was King. Yes, his music was good, he was extremely talented in a variety of ways, but King? Maybe President; his list of achievements certainly rivals that of any branch of gov't. But King? Jesus King OF Kings. And MJ certainly does not provide water for his people, food to eat or the comfort of the knowledge that salvation awaits those who ask for it. The moment some SONY exec decides to start branding "Jackson's Own" salad dressing, I'm sure someone will have an argument that they think makes sense...
Anyway. I keep telling my sister that she should buy the music that she likes, or at least that which she likes most. She insists that music should not be a job but instead a service that is done for mankind. I don't know where she gets that idea. Why not guard the cash register at WalMart as a service to mankind? Or cut the paychecks of the employees at J.P. Morgan for the same reason? Jobs ARE a service to mankind. As appreciation for x service, your are presented with a paycheck. Now, as far as the way the criminal justice system deals with thieves, as well as other criminals, that's an entirely different issue altogether.
I finally bought it a couple months ago. It's certainly a worthwhile addition to my CD stash.
I wonder how many copies the album sold tho. I know Anna-Lynne Williams, the one person who writes and orchestrates the music on the albums bearing the name Lotte Kestner, did tour regionally pretty frequently when she was in the band Trespassers William. She may have came from a somewhat wealthy family, and thus isn't concerned about money. I don't know. I spoke with her via email and she said she was raising the prices of her Trespassers William CDs that she sells personally b/c she said she'd lost a lot of the money she had invested b/c of the economic b.s. that was manifesting at that time (I don't remember the date or the year of the email exactly...), which implies she had (at one time at least) money TO invest...which is certainly not the case with me...even if I got "my head out of my ass" and "got a job", I'd still be making peanuts. A lot of people call their paycheck peanuts b/c they're not being paid wads of cash hand over fist...but then they go to the movie theater **and** buy popcorn+a drink on a regular basis. I could afford to go to the movie theater, sure, but if you compare the cost of my rent to that of the average Missourian, I'm very lucky. Thankfully, my sister is my landlord. Not too many people have that to say about themselves. Oh, AND I have a roommate to help with the base cost of rent and utilities etc....a lot of my money does get wasted b/c I like to shop and can't find anything truly worth buying that doesn't eat up a large chunk of my money. I usually end up buying things that I should already own but don't because I got rid of them to make room in my budget for more shopping...it's gotten better...still have some work to do...
But anyway. Assuming Anna-Lynne Williams was/is not well (or at least OK) to do outside of the monetary benefits of music making...I have to wonder: is her music profitable? I mean, I know a lot of artists/bands tour, sometimes, as in the case of Aerosmith etc., it's simply because they want to. Other times I don't get it. Pearl Jam? They actually elected not to tour in support of their 2nd album. I'm glad they were fortunate enough to deal their own cards. Of course, when you have mega-sales of one individual album, I'd imagine you can threaten your way into getting what you want (or un-getting what you want against). Michael Jackson toured b/c he was desperate for other people's acceptance/approval. Katy Perry probably tours b/c she has an ego 3x the size of her brain and likes that feeling of Ms. World Domination. Beyonce? I don't even understand her appeal. I didn't like Destiny's Child and I have no interest in Beyonce's solo career. So I can't say what it is about her that compels her to tour because she's an artist whose music I'm not interested enough in to bother analyzing. I didn't realize "Halo" was a Beyonce cover, btw. I just got done reading about that on PopMatters. It's a great song, a great performance...Beyonce's version I have no interest in. It may be good, it may not be. If Beyonce hadn't been working in a band that defined the cold-blooded nature of the music industry and the overall teenager population that listened to them, I might give it a try. N.I.
I know it's possible - very much so - for a band/artist that doesn't use payola or pimp themselves out to PepsiCo to succeed in the monetary standard.
But the only bands I can think of that have done that are Taking Back Sunday, Hawthorne Heights, Senses Fail, Silverstein and every other emopop band that cropped up before "emo" became a dirty word...and the only reason they succeeded on that front was because they were part of a trend. People were coocoo for emo - puffs. It'd be nice if once in a while an album would sell a large qty of units without the tools of payola, peer pressure, or the artist/band putting on some act that makes people think they have idol potential. Michael Jackson was the worst about that. He'd be on stage and you'd think he was King. Yes, his music was good, he was extremely talented in a variety of ways, but King? Maybe President; his list of achievements certainly rivals that of any branch of gov't. But King? Jesus King OF Kings. And MJ certainly does not provide water for his people, food to eat or the comfort of the knowledge that salvation awaits those who ask for it. The moment some SONY exec decides to start branding "Jackson's Own" salad dressing, I'm sure someone will have an argument that they think makes sense...
Anyway. I keep telling my sister that she should buy the music that she likes, or at least that which she likes most. She insists that music should not be a job but instead a service that is done for mankind. I don't know where she gets that idea. Why not guard the cash register at WalMart as a service to mankind? Or cut the paychecks of the employees at J.P. Morgan for the same reason? Jobs ARE a service to mankind. As appreciation for x service, your are presented with a paycheck. Now, as far as the way the criminal justice system deals with thieves, as well as other criminals, that's an entirely different issue altogether.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
ugh
My brain is messing up on me. Or maybe it's overloaded. I don't know. I think it's mostly just me trying to view through the curtain from 500 feet away...there's nothing to observe in this building (my Earthly home) that I'm in. I don't know how people assert that there is no justice in this world. Is there? What is justice? Does it even matter?
This is especially confusing
(NIV version):
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"
I guess "punishment" can range in severity...from a slap on the wrist to long hours/days of extreme torture...
I've read over 200 pages of the Old Testament, including the verse quoted above and I cannot say I've learned anything from it. Most of the encouragement I've had to keep the faith and do what little I've been entrusted with to show God's love is from church sermons and small group sessions. It probably would be less annoying if I'd pray more. I'm not very articulate. I'm not even very well versed in my own Frankenstein language...not to mention I get tripped up in how I say things...I try to go back and say it over...I guess that's what babbling is...a less impatient me would give myself & God more time to get on or further up the right path...it's not like I'm going to go to Hell if I don't go far enough up the trail...It blows my mind sometimes how lazy I can be. One moment I'm ready to take on the stairs like I'm Superman and the next moment I can't even get off the chair and go to the next room without a big bout of groaning....sometimes I feel like I have two brains and they want to duke it out so badly but they can't BECAUSE THEY OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE!!!
Ok...guess I'll finish whatever the hell it is I turned on the desktop computer to get done...and then I'll let my hair dry and pray...even if my heart feels like it's made of paper......
This is especially confusing
(NIV version):
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"
I guess "punishment" can range in severity...from a slap on the wrist to long hours/days of extreme torture...
I've read over 200 pages of the Old Testament, including the verse quoted above and I cannot say I've learned anything from it. Most of the encouragement I've had to keep the faith and do what little I've been entrusted with to show God's love is from church sermons and small group sessions. It probably would be less annoying if I'd pray more. I'm not very articulate. I'm not even very well versed in my own Frankenstein language...not to mention I get tripped up in how I say things...I try to go back and say it over...I guess that's what babbling is...a less impatient me would give myself & God more time to get on or further up the right path...it's not like I'm going to go to Hell if I don't go far enough up the trail...It blows my mind sometimes how lazy I can be. One moment I'm ready to take on the stairs like I'm Superman and the next moment I can't even get off the chair and go to the next room without a big bout of groaning....sometimes I feel like I have two brains and they want to duke it out so badly but they can't BECAUSE THEY OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE!!!
Ok...guess I'll finish whatever the hell it is I turned on the desktop computer to get done...and then I'll let my hair dry and pray...even if my heart feels like it's made of paper......
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Monumental 80's music document
Girls Just Want To Have Fun - Cyndi Lauper
Jessie's Girl - Rick Springfield
Beat It - Michael Jackson
Like A Virgin - Madonna
1999 - Prince
Born In The USA - Bruce Springstein
Addicted To Love - Robert Palmer
Owner Of A Lonely Heart - Yes
Jump - Van Halen
Africa - Toto
Higher Love - Steve Winwood
We Built This City - Starship
You Can Call Me Al - Paul Simon
I Got My Mind Set On You - George Harrison
One More Night - Phil Collins
99 Luftballoons - Nena
Don't Stop Believing - Journey
Drive - The Cars
Take On Me - A-Ha
Your Love - The Outfield
Something About You - Level 42
I Think We're Alone Now - Tiffany
Only In My Dreams - Debbie Gibson
Tell It To My Heart - Taylor Dayne
This list is just my perception. I was 6 years old on November 20th, 1989 and was not encouraged by my mother (or my father) to be materialistic or independent in my existence. Perhaps someone who was alive and more observant of the decade as it was unfolding can correct me on some of these. I know some of these songs are regularly played on radio today but may have not been as preferred in their heyday. I read on someone's Amazon review that Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" only went up to #7. I really have to rattle my head way too hard to figure out what else might have topped that song. It's an amazing song. Maybe too amazing for its time? Hmm...
Jessie's Girl - Rick Springfield
Beat It - Michael Jackson
Like A Virgin - Madonna
1999 - Prince
Born In The USA - Bruce Springstein
Addicted To Love - Robert Palmer
Owner Of A Lonely Heart - Yes
Jump - Van Halen
Africa - Toto
Higher Love - Steve Winwood
We Built This City - Starship
You Can Call Me Al - Paul Simon
I Got My Mind Set On You - George Harrison
One More Night - Phil Collins
99 Luftballoons - Nena
Don't Stop Believing - Journey
Drive - The Cars
Take On Me - A-Ha
Your Love - The Outfield
Something About You - Level 42
I Think We're Alone Now - Tiffany
Only In My Dreams - Debbie Gibson
Tell It To My Heart - Taylor Dayne
This list is just my perception. I was 6 years old on November 20th, 1989 and was not encouraged by my mother (or my father) to be materialistic or independent in my existence. Perhaps someone who was alive and more observant of the decade as it was unfolding can correct me on some of these. I know some of these songs are regularly played on radio today but may have not been as preferred in their heyday. I read on someone's Amazon review that Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" only went up to #7. I really have to rattle my head way too hard to figure out what else might have topped that song. It's an amazing song. Maybe too amazing for its time? Hmm...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)